Jacobin61%

Even Donald Trump Couldn’t Ruin the World Cup 82%

By David Goldblatt98%

7/19/2026, 8:35:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 85.5% saturation with 165 hits. Analysis detected 1,002 faulty-reasoning hits from 193 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,394 of 18,823 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.00% of the article peer group.

As the World Cup comes to an end, we’ve seen unprecedented levels of direct political interference in the organization of the tournament. 
FIFA president Gianni Infantino gave his friend Donald Trump a blank check to exclude anyone he liked from the United States, even referees, and Trump himself notoriously weighed in after a US player received a red card before their game against Belgium. 
We spoke to football historian David Goldblatt about the way this World Cup has unfolded and whether anything can be done to break the stranglehold of figures like Infantino on the game. 
This is an edited transcript from Jacobin’s Long Reads podcast. 
You can listen to the interview here. 
Daniel Finn 
This isn’t the first time the World Cup has been staged in a controversial host country: going back to the early years of the competition, you had the World Cup in Italy under Benito Mussolini in 1934, then you had it in Argentina under the military regime in 1978, and of course we’ve had Russia and Qatar in the last decade. 
How does this experience compare with those? 
David Goldblatt 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
43%
Representativeness Heuristic
31.6%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
20.7%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
4.1%
Negativity Bias
53.9%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
21.8%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
11.4%
Primacy Effect
31.6%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
43%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
38.3%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
21.8%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
53.4%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
4.1%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
21.8%
Biased Writer Voice
85.5%
Indoctrination
11.4%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
21.8%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

193 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.